Please stop this discussion about zero flaps config during take off, it is ridiculous.
If there is an issue with the max then this has to do with speed sensors malfunction.

I know it's a.net but can we please not speculate on information that we don't have, or is not confirmed. The same thing happened in the thread for the very recent DC3 accident.

Let the investigators do their job, see what gets released and wish the best to the families of those who passed.

Addis has long runways which are far beyond what a narrowbody requires on a short hop. That most likely means a low flap setting at takeoff for improved climb. I'd be surprised if the flap/slats weren't already retracted when things went wrong.

On the engine failure front, I can't see there being any real climb performance issues. Both the max and neo have more climb thrust and better climb gradients over the previous gen. Our engine out contingencies for Addis require 4% climb gradients at most which should be a walk in the park for the max.

Salina Chan wrote:

Those quick to call for a grounding should review the accident history of the A320 during the first years after it was introduced. Case in point, the second crash (Air Inter 148) occurred 667 days after the types' EIS while today is day 663 since the MAX entered service. Granted, the first accident was certainly more avoidable than others (although valuable lessons were learned) but still, two new types crashed twice within the first two years of airline ops (although more than half a century ago and therefore probably not valid for comparison, DH 106 had three fatal crashes within 618 days with a fourth on day 706). The other members of the 737 and 320 family were much luckier...

edited for typos

The 1992 Air Inter accident was almost 4 years after the A320’s 1988 entry into service. You’re probably thinking of the Air France and Indian Airlines accidents, both of which occurred within two years of EIS.

Has there been slip-up within the American aviation industry, particularly Boeing?

Absolutely disastrous and my condolences go out to the families of those affected.

More and more airlines will need to be seriously looking at shifting their orders to Airbus.

Any reported communication between the aircraft and TWR/DEP/CTR while climbing out?

Amsterdam wrote:

buzzard302 wrote:

I didn't even think it was possible to take off without flaps. Pretty much always thought they would get a takeoff config fault. For sure, the cause of Lionair and this new incident need to be investigated in an expedited manner.

Of course they will get a loud alarm. Like i said before, the moment they put the thrust levers forward on the runway to initiate take off that alarm will sound and its an almost defeaning alarm. The chance the crew forgot flaps AND that alarm was defect is almost below 0% chance.

Actually, it is the same alarm that sounds in case the cabin pressure drops in flight, so you can image how loud the sound has to be to also hear it clearly and loud during flight.

ZeeZoo wrote:

Has there been slip-up within the American aviation industry, particularly Boeing?

Absolutely disastrous and my condolences go out to the families of those affected.

More and more airlines will need to be seriously looking at shifting their orders to Airbus.

Not sure if they need to shift their orders to airbus, but if there’s a problem witn the MAX boeing need to fix it pretty quick.

NearMiss wrote:

This looks eerily similar to Lion Air 610... Condolences to all those involved.

What about this flight is eerily similar to Lion 610?

qf789 wrote:

Could we please just debate the topic without making things personal nor making outlandish statements such as grounding the worldwide fleet or its definitely not the airlines fault without having evidence to back that up. Additionally be respectful to one another. Those coming here just to post comments such I will not fly the 737MAX, comments such as this do not contribute to the topic and will be removed

Good luck with your request. All the safety/aviation experts on a.net are alive and well!

MD80Ttail wrote:

Wow. That’s surreal. Must have been near vertical dive. Horrible.

True - which kinda throws out a number of other theories here IMHO. The first of which is the radar / transponder info we have, which (as some have said) clearly stops very early. Shortly after take off, hot and high, with a full pax load (albeit not a ton of fuel) there's no way the aircraft could achieve sufficient velocity to create what is (after studying almost every major air crash in the jet age) the most devastating impact / crash site I've ever seen.

Likewise, I think we can rule out any / all types of engine failure here - they'd ALL result in a relatively low velocity, and even if they initiated some kind of bizarre nose-dive (I don't even know how..) I still don't see how you'd achieve the impact crater we see here. A mis-handled engine failure SHOULD result in a crash short of the field, crash while turning back due to stall (flat-type crash) or all-out stall (again, a flat crash site with large pieces of debris).

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

What if the plane was simply overloaded and overweight? What would that explain?

The short flight time makes this almost impossible due to unused fuel weight.

osiris30 wrote:

No. The data is starting to look like a no flaps situation. Aircraft took off without flaps. Mcas active then. Speed would increase more rapidly than with flaps. Forgetting to set flaps would explain most of what we see and as someone posted ADD has long runways so the AC would get off without flaps.

This would go against every takeoff all crew have ever done - they don't just "decide" to not use flaps. As others have said, there's no procedure for a no-flaps takeoff, the aircraft isn't certified for it.
Also I'm guessing it would sound an aural "takeoff config" warning once they advanced the throttles, but I'd need a 737 driver to verify that.

soectre99 wrote:

EmoticonsAllDay wrote:

So much for the impeccable saftey record of the 737 family. I'm not flying any MAX planes until the problem is definitely resolved. Better to be safe than sorry.

It is literally far safer to fly on a Max (taking into account these 2 incidents) than sitting in a car on the way to an airport.

There are ~350 737MAX delivered which on average are ~1 year old and fly ~6 flights a day. Thus about 750.000 flights have been operated of which 2 killed all passangers. Taking into account these accidents the chance of dying on this plane is 1 in 375.000. The chance of dying in traffic in Western countries on any given day is about 1 in 12.000.000. So even if my numbers are a bit off (which they will be), you’re very very wrong. Unless you compare the 737MAX with driving a bike in Thailand that is.

EmoticonsAllDay wrote:

B747forever wrote:

Zoedyn wrote:

Too much of a blow to ET, the booming African flagship carrier

I feel really sorry for ET. Hope this crash won’t tarnish their brand as they have worked really hard to build it up the past few years.

I'm positive that ET is not at fault here.

Wow, the expert has spoken, case closed///

Although I did admire the MAX I'd be a bit hesitant to fly one until I know more about this horrific crash. As a frequent Canadian domestic flyer, it's gonna be a challenge avoiding the MAX here soon with big orders from AC and Westjet and few if any new NEOs for Canadian carriers in the future.

ranold76 wrote:

Any reported communication between the aircraft and TWR/DEP/CTR while climbing out?

I cannot quickly find the post above (in the earlier 300+ posts) but there was one that stated that the PIC had informed ATC of some problems, and had been cleared to return

sasd209 wrote:

EmoticonsAllDay wrote:

B747forever wrote:

I feel really sorry for ET. Hope this crash won’t tarnish their brand as they have worked really hard to build it up the past few years.

I'm positive that ET is not at fault here.

Wow, the expert has spoken, case closed///

A.net has so many aviation experts. I’m surprised Boeing hasn’t solicited their help in solving this accident.

In order to prevent grounding the Max8 (very negative impact for Boeing) , all focus will be on human error, fuel contamination etc... everything not pointing at technical problems within the acft itself... w8 and see...

Assuming MCAS was even involved, are we to assume that following LionAir crash any type-rated 737MAX pilot would not be hyper-aware of procedure to disable MCAS in case of uncommanded trim? Assuming that MCAS were disabled, is it thought that the 737MAX is not able to be flown safely? Wasn't the LionAir aircraft that crashed successfully flown with a faulty MCAS system (derived from faulty AOA sensor(s) & bad software) after disabling the system per procedure by the previous crew?

giopan1975 wrote:

Please stop this discussion about zero flaps config during take off, it is ridiculous.
If there is an issue with the max then this has to do with speed sensors malfunction.

Exactly. Every scenario is possible, but on a 737 taking off without flaps and also at the same time the “take off config” alarm being failed is extremely unlikely.
Contuining a take off without flaps while the alarm is working and sounding is actually even more unlikely, if that is even possible to be more unlikely.

Besides that, even if you forget flaps AND the alarm is defect, then still you will have a completely different problem, at the moment the speed you have calculated for rotation the ac will not lift off. So you have to postpone etc. Completely different situation scenario. The pilots would not have called to return after being airborn.

So we should put the no flaps take off theory really in the closet now.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Although the recent JT610 crash is making everyone immediately think another MCAS, don’t forget the region. They have a poor Aviation safety record and there’s dozens of reasons this crash could’ve occurred, I’d be putting my dollar initially on something else (or a combination of factors as most aviation accidents are.)

Is it safe to fly on a 737 Max?

Yes, but I’d be making sure I was flying on an airline with a good safety culture and low levels of corruption (and that goes for any aircraft type).

I still maintain that properly trained pilots and a good safety culture would’ve easily prevented JT610.

I take exception to this post because it shows an ingrained bias anchored in the past.

Africa, traditionally, has a poor aviation record due to the following

1. Extreme weather.
2. Poorer air training for pilots comparatively.
3. Non modern aircraft, often 2nd hand.
4. Maintenance less effective, magnified by 3.
5. Poor infrastructure.

However in this case, 1, 3 and 4 are negated. It is far too early to decide on the reason for this crash. The same argument was used for when Lion Air crashed, and it was far too early. That investigation is still ongoing.

For both the Lion Air and this crash the cause is not known.

I came on here to look for extra information, that is what people in aviation want, an addition to the mainstream media, so we have to sift out loads of chaff from commentators unfortunately.

That last sentence is not aimed at you, it is the guff that came after.

Boeing isn't in the habit of pushing out defective airplanes, so the quickness with which people are jumping to blame this on the MAX is a bit strange, considering so far nothing (or at least not anything I've seen) besides the models being the same points to this accident is similar to the LionAir crash.

osiris30 wrote:

Agreed. Humans are very good at connecting unrelated events and finding patterns that don't exist it is part of how we work. I am more B than A but can honestly say the following:. If that was a 320neo and Lionair too, I would not be calling for a grounding.

Yes, as someone who's been reading this forum since 2007, your objectivity on all things Airbus makes this very believable.

Bobloblaw wrote:

A320FlyGuy wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

[40 years ago, the FAA did just that with the DC-10, with 138 grounded in the USA after AA191 crashed.

And don't forget that grounding was unique because not only was the DC-10 grounded in the US and all countries that accept FAA certification data but the FAA enacted a special condition banning the DC-10 from US airspace. If this happens with the MAX (which could happen...) it will certainly be a smear on Boeing...2 new aircraft programs with groundings within 2 years of EIS... certainly unprecedented for a company known for engineering excellence.

The 787 never crashed and no one remembers the initial problems. This is very bad no way around it. The best analogy would be the L188 Electra in 1959-60. There is no telling how bad this could be for Boeing.

That was ultimately traced to a third-party battery supplier, while the DC-10 issue was found to be lack of a redundancy with respect to what powered certain devices. As for the MAX 8, I would expect that investigators on JT610 would also work with ET302 to see if there are similarities, given that both happened on climb-out with airspeed fluctuations and a request to return.

At the time of the 787 grounding, it was mostly Japanese carriers who were affected, as they were operating 24 of the 50 delivered to date, although LOT was also severely affected despite flying just 2 at the time. (The only US operator at the time was United, flying 6; American had not yet inducted the 787).

LAX772LR wrote:

JQ321 wrote:

all 737MAX Aircraft should be grounded till the cause is determined

....jump the gun much?

I don't think that a temporary grounding is an unreasonable thing to contemplate at this stage. This unfortunate accident has now raised the level of concern and urgency. More than 1 brand new 737MAX has now plunged from the sky shortly after takeoff killing all aboard. FAA and Boeing need to contemplate actions beyond simply beginning another investigation.

Terrible accident and prayers for the victims and families.

CRJ200flyer wrote:

Salina Chan wrote:

Those quick to call for a grounding should review the accident history of the A320 during the first years after it was introduced. Case in point, the second crash (Air Inter 148) occurred 667 days after the types' EIS while today is day 663 since the MAX entered service. Granted, the first accident was certainly more avoidable than others (although valuable lessons were learned) but still, two new types crashed twice within the first two years of airline ops (although more than half a century ago and therefore probably not valid for comparison, DH 106 had three fatal crashes within 618 days with a fourth on day 706). The other members of the 737 and 320 family were much luckier...

edited for typos

The 1992 Air Inter accident was almost 4 years after the A320’s 1988 entry into service. You’re probably thinking of the Air France and Indian Airlines accidents, both of which occurred within two years of EIS.

yes of course...right date wrong airline. Thanks for noticing

zakelwe wrote:

I take exception to this post because it shows an ingrained bias anchored in the past.

Africa, traditionally, has a poor aviation record due to the following

1. Extreme weather.
2. Poorer air training for pilots comparatively.
3. Non modern aircraft, often 2nd hand.
4. Maintenance less effective, magnified by 3.
5. Poor infrastructure.

However in this case, 1, 3 and 4 are negated. It is far too early to decide on the reason for this crash. The same argument was used for when Lion Air crashed, and it was far too early. That investigation is still ongoing.
.

Weren't there maintenance issues discovered with the Lion Air flight? Or at least maintenance red flags yet the plane was still in service?

RogerMurdock wrote:

Btblue wrote:

I think it's perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions between this flight, and the LionAir crash last year.
...
Same stage in the flight envelope.

Not at all the same stage in the flight envelope. MCAS, which was the final cause of the LionAir crash, can only operate with flaps retracted.

No flaps beyond 230..250 knots ( ok, for the NG apparently.)
going by the graph shown further up https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1SRr8fW0AAqvOy.jpg they were already faster when they were still "in recording range" ( at around 5:39:40 )

lowbank wrote:

For all those people talking of engine failure. Three examples of double engine loss spring to mind.

A330 which ran out of fuel at 33,000 feet and glided to land in the Azores. Few elements of luck meant they were close enough.
777 fuel lines iced up on approach to Heathrow, landed short of the runway.
Miracle of the Hudson,

Even with no engines all these planes could be controlled by the pilots.

I don’t get the feeling from initial reports it’s an engine issue.

SK751, double engine failure 78 seconds after take off. No fatalities.

Calling for a complete 737 MAX grounding is just nonsense. 99% of the people here have nothing to do with designing the MAX, operating it or flying it, nor they know how the systems operate, yet they believe they have the right to scream "immediate grounding of the max" based on 2 accidents, which can be totally unrelated, the second of which can be for any reason whatsoever as it happened less than 12 hours ago! If after further investigation, there will be a reason to ground the MAX it will be grounded, luckily it will happen for the proper reason and not because some av-geek screamed so on a forum.

Viper911

LAX772LR wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

then to read after two seemingly similar fatal accidents on the 737MAX people believe grounding is jumping the gun. Unbelievable.

What's unbelievable is such idiotic levels of assumption are taken even remotely seriously.

Repeat after me:
You... Don't... Yet... Know... What... Caused... This... Crash.

You can't even say what the primary contribution (human, mechanical, aeronatical, combination) was on the most *basic* level, yet.

But you want to ground a worldwide fleet?

Exactly. We don't know what caused the crash yet. So let's keep flying them and see if another crashes. A few hundred people have already lost their lives to this new plane. How many more should be lost before we determine the cause? Are you comfortable allowing the plane to keep flying knowing there is a possibility the cause may have been the same and there may be more planes flying around with the same problem? Remember when the DC-10 got grounded? Was that jumping the gun too?

Redd wrote:

george77300 wrote:

Ethiopian has just confirmed the Captain had 8000 total hours but the FO only had 200 total hours. That’s one inexperienced FO.

Maybe they meant the FO had 200 hours on type, or 2000 total hours... You need 200 hours for a commercial pilots license, so if he had 200 TT that means he went from Cessna's straight to a 737. Not likely.

Yes, they do. Straight from C172 or DA40 to B737 or DH8D (with a couple of hours on DA42 in between).

flyingbird wrote:

log0008 wrote:

PW100 wrote:

Look at the graph:
* Blue line represents altitude;
* Blue line starts a 0 ft altitude, so clearly that is AGL;
* Blue line goes upto at least 8000 ft above runway (which is at 0 ft in the graph);
* ADD runway is at 7650 ft.;
Therefore is seems logical that the aircraft reached at least 15000 ft before data feed stopped.
And note that FR24 stated that data feed did not stop because of the crash, but because the aircraft left the FR24 covered area.

Further, it does seem logical that the aircraft "struggled" to reach 1000 ft AGL, when airspeed (yellow line in graph) reached 400 kts.

Or am I reading the graph incorrectly, somehow?

FR24 knows when an aircraft is on the ground and reports it as 0 feet not if you were to take it as AGL the graph would say the aircraft went from 0 to 8000ft in less than 1 minute, completely impossible.

It's better to try to understand the data instead of claming that it's bad or impossible.
When on ground the transponder transmitts 0 altitude.
On take off the transponder changes to transmitting AMSL altitude.
And suddelty everything makes sense.
Same thing happens on landing, but other way around. From 7600 feet altitude goes to 0.

Interesting data. But am I reading it correctly.....the altitude goes from 0 to 7,200 (airborne?) when it's at 93 knots? The altitude doesn't show 7,600 ft. until later when the speed is 232 knots, one minute later, after it has had fluctuating vertical speed readings.

wjcandee wrote:

This is the silliest thread I have seen in a long time.
.....
How about engine failure?
Four pages and nobody mentions engine failure as a possible reason the thing had problems climbing?

How about pilots reported "difficulties with the airplane".

What were you saying about silly....

WIederling wrote:

RogerMurdock wrote:

Btblue wrote:

I think it's perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions between this flight, and the LionAir crash last year.
...
Same stage in the flight envelope.

Not at all the same stage in the flight envelope. MCAS, which was the final cause of the LionAir crash, can only operate with flaps retracted.

No flaps beyond 230..250 knots ( ok, for the NG apparently.)
going by the graph shown further up https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1SRr8fW0AAqvOy.jpg they were already faster when they were still "in recording range" ( at around 5:39:40 )

Please don't mix TAS with GS

For everyone here saying it’s impossible for a zero flaps takeoff, you’re wrong. All it takes is the aural warning circuit breaker to be pulled and the pilots would loose the ability to quickly respond. It’s happened numerous times and has led to crashes. There are maintenance procedures that sometimes require the C/B to be pulled, and unless you have a diligent maintenance and flight crew, it sometimes gets left out, its happened more than you realize. Complacency is real in aviation.

You also can’t discount the literally hundreds of other potential causes

UALWN wrote:

Incredibly sad and very worrisome. People might want to keep their heads in the sand, but this is eerily similar to the Lion AIr crash: two 737-8MAX that literally fall out of the sky soon after take off (the FR24 data stops at 8600 ft, yes, but that's three minutes before the crash; there's no FR24 data for the last three minutes of the flight). My son was coming home in a couple of weeks in a Norwegian MAX: I just bought him another ticket on easyJet.

How can it be concluded to be "eerily similar" if the data doesn't exist? The only thing similar is the model of the plane.

Did the pilots report any issues to atc? If they had similar mcas issues I'd find it hard to believe that a half competent pilot wouldn't be aware of the recovery procedure this soon after lion air.

I'm not jumping to the conclusion that they're isn't possibly any design flaw with the max but people shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is mcas again either.

cschleic wrote:

flyingbird wrote:

log0008 wrote:

FR24 knows when an aircraft is on the ground and reports it as 0 feet not if you were to take it as AGL the graph would say the aircraft went from 0 to 8000ft in less than 1 minute, completely impossible.

It's better to try to understand the data instead of claming that it's bad or impossible.
When on ground the transponder transmitts 0 altitude.
On take off the transponder changes to transmitting AMSL altitude.
And suddelty everything makes sense.
Same thing happens on landing, but other way around. From 7600 feet altitude goes to 0.

Interesting data. But am I reading it correctly.....the altitude goes from 0 to 7,200 (airborne?) when it's at 93 knots? The altitude doesn't show 7,600 ft. until later when the speed is 232 knots, one minute later, after it has had fluctuating vertical speed readings.

Bole Airport is 7625 feet above sea level. Keep that in mind. The land around might be lower.

N212R wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

This is the silliest thread I have seen in a long time.
.....
How about engine failure?
Four pages and nobody mentions engine failure as a possible reason the thing had problems climbing?

How about pilots reported "difficulties with the airplane".

What were you saying about silly....

I would think that engine failure would have warranted a Mayday call -- not just reported "difficulties with the airplane."

Zoedyn wrote:

I was stunned to learn of the news right after my getting out of the swimming pool

Condolences to all involved

Too much of a blow to ET, the booming African flagship carrier

Dying to know the causes

"Dying to know the causes". Ooh, that's cringeworthy.

crimsonchin wrote:

Boeing isn't in the habit of pushing out defective airplanes, so the quickness with which people are jumping to blame this on the MAX is a bit strange, considering so far nothing (or at least not anything I've seen) besides the models being the same points to this accident is similar to the LionAir crash.

osiris30 wrote:

Agreed. Humans are very good at connecting unrelated events and finding patterns that don't exist it is part of how we work. I am more B than A but can honestly say the following:. If that was a 320neo and Lionair too, I would not be calling for a grounding.

Yes, as someone who's been reading this forum since 2007, your objectivity on all things Airbus makes this very believable.

No one is in the business of pushing out defective planes - it has nothing to do with Boeing's "philosophy". Reputation is everything in every business - but especially when your products are responsible for the lives of hundreds of millions of passengers' lives.

The simple fact remains that (in this case) Boeing was indeed limited in the methods of which they could fit a larger diameter engine onto their existing aircraft in order to remain competitive and relevant in a cut-throat market. I'm not even saying there's any flaw with it, but it's something that IS IN FACT unique to Boeing in this case. Nothing to do with them "not in the business of pushing out defective planes". It is however a simple fact that those engines are NOT where they'd want them to be if they had infinite clearance.

That fact has various ramifications to the design and handling of the aircraft, systems, etc. It's clearly capable of working perfectly fine, but being a new aircraft, it's tough to foresee every possible impact any and every failure or situation (or combination) may have on a design or system.

dtwpilot225 wrote:

I can’t belive the first thing people are saying on this thread is ground the max! What if there was a terrorist on board, should we still ground it then?
We have no idea what caused this crash can we wait a couple days for our knee jerk reactions?
People died here

As many other posters have noted, the reason is called "precautionary principle" : "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."
On such a situation, this principle does not benefit Boeing and its economic performance but rather the safety of passengers.

Jetty wrote:

soectre99 wrote:

EmoticonsAllDay wrote:

So much for the impeccable saftey record of the 737 family. I'm not flying any MAX planes until the problem is definitely resolved. Better to be safe than sorry.

It is literally far safer to fly on a Max (taking into account these 2 incidents) than sitting in a car on the way to an airport.

There are ~350 737MAX delivered which on average are ~1 year old and fly ~6 flights a day. Thus about 750.000 flights have been operated of which 2 killed all passangers. Taking into account these accidents the chance of dying on this plane is 1 in 375.000. The chance of dying in traffic in Western countries on any given day is about 1 in 12.000.000. So even if my numbers are a bit off (which they will be), you’re very very wrong. Unless you compare the 737MAX with driving a bike in Thailand that is.

I assume you need to use passenger miles or at least total people for a valid comparison. Say, 375,000 x 150 or some such. You are conflating total accidents with the chance of dying.

Indy wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

then to read after two seemingly similar fatal accidents on the 737MAX people believe grounding is jumping the gun. Unbelievable.

What's unbelievable is such idiotic levels of assumption are taken even remotely seriously.

Repeat after me:
You... Don't... Yet... Know... What... Caused... This... Crash.

You can't even say what the primary contribution (human, mechanical, aeronatical, combination) was on the most *basic* level, yet.

But you want to ground a worldwide fleet?

Exactly. We don't know what caused the crash yet. So let's keep flying them and see if another crashes. A few hundred people have already lost their lives to this new plane. How many more should be lost before we determine the cause? Are you comfortable allowing the plane to keep flying knowing there is a possibility the cause may have been the same and there may be more planes flying around with the same problem? Remember when the DC-10 got grounded? Was that jumping the gun too?

INDY: Thank you for this post. You said exactly what thousands of people are thinking right now. We are now at 300+ dead in 2 very similar crashes. How many more 737MAX jets will have to crash before someone will consider grounding the MAX fleet? How many more 737MAX passengers need to lose their lives before that happens? In a world where we all like data, these are NOT unreasonable questions to ask. I am 100% comfortable saying that neither I nor my family will be boarding a 737MAX operated by any carrier (sorry WN, AA and UA) until this issue is fully understood and resolved.

Not sure if anyone has posted the nationalities on board (searching thread yielded no results, but there was a convo on UN passports)

From 33 countries - 32 Kenyans, 18 Canadians, nine Ethiopians, eight Italians, eight Chinese citizens, eight Americans, seven British citizens, seven French citizens, six Egyptians, five Dutch citizens, four Indians, four from Slovakia, three Austrians, three Swedes, three Russians, two Moroccans, two Spaniards, two Poles, two Israelis, and one each from Belgium, Indonesia, Somalia, Norway, Serbia, Togo, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda and Yemen.

- Four were using United Nations passports so their nationalities are not immediately clear.

Question. Does anyone know what happens in the 737 with max nose down trim, and max up elevator? E.g a runaway trim and pilots trying to counteract with elevator? Would you have any chance of climbing?

I am Not speculating here.
God bless everyone involved.

DL747400 wrote:

Indy wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

What's unbelievable is such idiotic levels of assumption are taken even remotely seriously.

Repeat after me:
You... Don't... Yet... Know... What... Caused... This... Crash.

You can't even say what the primary contribution (human, mechanical, aeronatical, combination) was on the most *basic* level, yet.

But you want to ground a worldwide fleet?

Exactly. We don't know what caused the crash yet. So let's keep flying them and see if another crashes. A few hundred people have already lost their lives to this new plane. How many more should be lost before we determine the cause? Are you comfortable allowing the plane to keep flying knowing there is a possibility the cause may have been the same and there may be more planes flying around with the same problem? Remember when the DC-10 got grounded? Was that jumping the gun too?

INDY: Thank you for this post. You said exactly what I (and many thousands of others) are thinking right now. We are now at 300+ dead in 2 very similar crashes. How many more 737MAX jets will crash before someone will consider grounding the MAX fleet? How many more 737MAX passengers need to lost their lives before that happens? In a world where we all like data, these are now unreasonable questions to raise. I am 100% comfortable saying that neither I nor my family will be boarding a 737MAX operated by any carrier (sorry WN, AA and UA) until this issue is fully understood and resolved.

I fly frequently and I have choices when booking flights. Flights on MAX becomes anther factor when making my decisions.

ZeeZoo wrote:

Has there been slip-up within the American aviation industry, particularly Boeing?

I'm going to say it is more the ebb and flow at Boeing leading to such a massive variation in designs such as the 777 and 787 one moment, and the 737MAX the next. Historically, the leadership at Boeing was always between the engineers and the beancounters. The engineers were behind excellent clean-sheet designs, but typically foul up the economy of the project with massive cost overruns. The beancounters create underwelming evolutionary designs that are cheap to develop.
Around the start of the 90s, the former group launched the 777, and later the 787. Then in the 2000s, much of the notoriously cheapskate McDonnell Douglas management joined Boeings board, the latter group took command and started pushing out the evolutionary 737MAX and 777X. Also of interesting note is how the post-McD merger board seems to have taken a DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 approach to the 737 development, and probably not without coincidence...

ZeeZoo wrote:

More and more airlines will need to be seriously looking at shifting their orders to Airbus.

I don't see any airlines that already placed orders swap just for now, but it could have an impact on upcoming decisions. Weren't Air France-KLM and Qantas going to select the future narrowbody in a few months time?
And if it really turns out to be a design flaw, then it could have a major impact on Boeing's next airplane. Much has been said about the 797 becoming a 757 and 767 sized plane, but if the 737MAX runs into major problems, they will have no options but to switch focus to a 737 replacement ASAP.

garf25 wrote:

Question. Does anyone know what happens in the 737 with max nose down trim, and max up elevator? E.g a runaway trim and pilots trying to counteract with elevator? Would you have any chance of climbing?

IMU the Lion Air crew didn't even have a chance at level flight.

DL747400 wrote:

Indy wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

What's unbelievable is such idiotic levels of assumption are taken even remotely seriously.

Repeat after me:
You... Don't... Yet... Know... What... Caused... This... Crash.

You can't even say what the primary contribution (human, mechanical, aeronatical, combination) was on the most *basic* level, yet.

But you want to ground a worldwide fleet?

Exactly. We don't know what caused the crash yet. So let's keep flying them and see if another crashes. A few hundred people have already lost their lives to this new plane. How many more should be lost before we determine the cause? Are you comfortable allowing the plane to keep flying knowing there is a possibility the cause may have been the same and there may be more planes flying around with the same problem? Remember when the DC-10 got grounded? Was that jumping the gun too?

INDY: Thank you for this post. You said exactly what I (and many thousands of others) are thinking right now. We are now at 300+ dead in 2 very similar crashes. How many more 737MAX jets will crash before someone will consider grounding the MAX fleet? How many more 737MAX passengers need to lost their lives before that happens? In a world where we all like data, these are now unreasonable questions to raise. I am 100% comfortable saying that neither I nor my family will be boarding a 737MAX operated by any carrier (sorry WN, AA and UA) until this issue is fully understood and resolved.

Well said! Will also avoid at all costs for now.

I thought there is a cockpit verbal/bell warning if you are not configured correctly for takeoff?
As others have mentioned, not certified for a no flap takeoff, really stunned by the destruction field - damn....

CRJ200flyer wrote:

The 1992 Air Inter accident was almost 4 years after the A320’s 1988 entry into service. You’re probably thinking of the Air France and Indian Airlines accidents, both of which occurred within two years of EIS.

This is slightly comparing apples with pears.

The Air France 296 crash was to do with incorrect altitude inputs and as a result the aircrafts inability to understand if it had landed. There were no direct fatalities (3 died later from related injuries).

Inter 146 was again pilot error as they input a rate of decent as foot per minute rather than AoA and didn’t recognise the error, flying at night in weather.

Neither of these accidents seem to relate to what is being speculated here (accusation that this is another Lion Air) as this is a software change that was not properly communicated and has the potential to cause such a violent, unpredictable and fatal change to the aircrafts behaviour.

Amsterdam wrote:

Besides that, even if you forget flaps AND the alarm is defect, then still you will have a completely different problem, at the moment the speed you have calculated for rotation the ac will not lift off. So you have to postpone etc. Completely different situation scenario. The pilots would not have called to return after being airborn.

So we should put the no flaps take off theory really in the closet now.

Despite all the alarms that would sound and the lack of rotation performance, lack of flaps would not cause a nose down crash. The airspeed isn’t reported as being anywhere near a no flaps stall for what is recorded on FR24.

Sandyb123